Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. Chapter 2: Alphabetics, Part I: Phonemic Awareness Instruction
National Reading Panel. (2000).
Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2:1-2:86.
This meta-analysis compares the effect of phonemic awareness instruction to the effect of alternate or no instruction on reading and spelling development in children, preschool through grade 12, including those at-risk for reading difficulty and those with reading disorders. This review is part of a series of reviews from the National Reading Panel examining the scientific research on reading instruction for children.
Department of Education; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
This systematic review is one chapter of a six chapter report of systematic reviews. The titles of all the chapters are included in the Associated Article section below, and chapters of particular relevance to the Evidence Maps are linked to their respective ASHA Article Summaries.
No publication date restriction
Experimental studies; quasi-experimental studies with a control group or multiple baseline method
52
Overall, phonemic instuction had a small to moderate effect on reading (d= 0.41). Positive effects were noted across grades, however, greater gains were noted for younger children (i.e., kidergarten and 1st graders; d= 0.55) than to older children (i.e., 2nd through 5th graders; d= 0.27). Partial maintenance was noted at follow up (from d= 0.51 to d= 0.27), with follow-up being conducted at variable times (i.e., 4 months to 1 year post treatment). The greatest effects were noted for measures of decoding regularly spelled words (d= 0.67) and pseudowords (d= 0.60). Gains were also noted for reading miscellaneous words (d= 0.40), spelling (d= 0.35) comprehension (d= 0.27), and oral reading (d= 0.25).
